LDS Temples and the Ancient Jerusalem Temple(s)

[NYCGuy]

I'd like to see those claims. Please, provide a link or a quote where I can look at what you are referencing here. While the LDS doctrines are a restoration of the gospel taught by Christ, I'm not sure that we claim to have restored the ancient temple. At least, not in those exact terms.

Although I was not referencing a specific quote, I think it's clear from various LDS-related sources that there is a common belief that the LDS temples restore ancient temple structure and practices. A few examples:

Latter-day Saints view the ordinances as a revealed restoration of ancient temple ceremony and only incidentally related to Freemasonry.

...
...Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances are as old as man and that the essentials of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including its necessary ritual and teachings, were first revealed to Adam. These saving principles and ordinances were subsequently revealed to Seth; Noah; Melchizedek; Abraham, and each prophet to whom the priesthood was given, including Peter. Latter-day Saints believe that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today replicate rituals that were part of God's teachings from the beginning.
Freemasonry and the Temple - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." - Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208


“In Biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. These buildings thus were not synagogues, nor any other ordinary places of worship... Following the pattern of Biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe, and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites” (Why Mormons Build Temples, p. 2).
Why Mormons Build Temples - Ensign Jan. 1972 - ensign

Ancient Temples and Their Functions - Ensign Jan. 1972 - ensign

"Patterned after temples in ancient scripture, these sacred structures are used for worship and instruction, eternal marriage, and baptisms for deceased ancestors."-Mormon Temples, Mormon Newsroom.
Mormon Temples - YouTube

(I don't have 50 posts yet to be able to post links)

Except, proxy batpisms were performed. If you choose to reject that notion, that's up to you, but I'm pretty sure the OP asked what the LDS thought about the topic.

1 Corinthians 15: 29

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?


As an argument in support of the resurrection of the dead, Paul appeals to logic, explaining that it makes no sense for them to do baptisms for the dead if the dead did not rise.

So are you claiming that proxy baptisms were performed in the temple in the New Testament? Paul was referencing a temple practice of baptism for the dead, occurring in the temple? Note, I was not talking merely about proxy baptisms, but what was going on in the temple.

Do you mean the Temple of Herod?

Either Solomon's Temple or Herod's Temple, whichever you wish to comment on.

Exodus 26 discusses the Holy of Holies. This was divided from the Holy place by a veil. The outer court of the temple was used by the people. I'm not sure how much description of what took place in the Holy of Holies is described in the Bible. But then again, the Bible makes many comments about the mysteries of God and it is not surprising to me that this would be one of them.

I believe that they were performing Endowments there. I'd have to do some research to tell you what the stance of the Church is on the matter.

What are your evidences that they were performing Endowments there?

Do you believe that the Celestial Room is equivalent to the Holy of Holies (interestingly, the Salt Lake Temple has a Holy of Holies, and it isn't the Celestial Room)?

 

[NYCGuy]

Hebrews 9 states the the High Priest only entered the Holy of Holies once a year, and also goes into more detail about what took place there.

7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.​

You might also want to read Leviticus 16, which discusses the Day of Atonement.

Thank you.

Apparently the Holy Place, separate from the Holy of Holies by the veil, had the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, and the Table of Shewbread, with the Bread of the Presence. None of which are present in LDS temples.

 

[Simpleman25]

Latter-day Saints view the ordinances as a revealed restoration of ancient temple ceremony and only incidentally related to Freemasonry.



It's not by accident. Smith lifted, or stole the symbols from freemasonry.

Mormonism and lds are groups invented by smith.

 

[Ran77]

Although I was not referencing a specific quote, I think it's clear from various LDS-related sources that there is a common belief that the LDS temples restore ancient temple structure and practices. A few examples:

Let's look at the quotes that come from doctrinal sources.

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." - Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208

This does reveal that the ordinances are the same as those which were setup previously and that is certainly what LDS believe.

“In Biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. These buildings thus were not synagogues, nor any other ordinary places of worship... Following the pattern of Biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe, and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites” (Why Mormons Build Temples, p. 2).
Why Mormons Build Temples - Ensign Jan. 1972 - ensign

This quote does not specify that the ordinances of old were done in a temple, but rather a holy edifice. That may mean a temple or it could mean something else. It then goes on to speak about how the "ordinances" have been provided again. As I stated above, yes, the LDS believe these are the same ordinances as of old.

"Patterned after temples in ancient scripture, these sacred structures are used for worship and instruction, eternal marriage, and baptisms for deceased ancestors."-Mormon Temples, Mormon Newsroom.[/I]
Mormon Temples - YouTube

Patterned after refers to the design of the temples. Basically, this quote says that they were constructed/patterened after ancient temples. AND they are used for worhship, instruction, marriage, and baptisms for the dead.

So are you claiming that proxy baptisms were performed in the temple in the New Testament? Paul was referencing a temple practice of baptism for the dead, occurring in the temple? Note, I was not talking merely about proxy baptisms, but what was going on in the temple.

I have not claimed that baptism for the dead was performed in the temple. I have claimed that LDS believe that baptism for the dead was being practiced during Paul's time. I am uncertain where they were performed.

What are your evidences that they were performing Endowments there?

Revelation from the prophets.

Do you believe that the Celestial Room is equivalent to the Holy of Holies (interestingly, the Salt Lake Temple has a Holy of Holies, and it isn't the Celestial Room)?

I'm not certain what the Holy of Holies corresponds to in our current temples. My purpose for bringing it up is to point out that it existed in olden times and it had to have served some purpose. I suggest that ordinances were performed, but they were not discussed in the scriptures.

 

[NYCGuy]

Let's look at the quotes that come from doctrinal sources.

This does reveal that the ordinances are the same as those which were setup previously and that is certainly what LDS believe.

So then it is taught that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today were performed in temples anciently. Which is what I said from the beginning...

This quote does not specify that the ordinances of old were done in a temple, but rather a holy edifice. That may mean a temple or it could mean something else. It then goes on to speak about how the "ordinances" have been provided again. As I stated above, yes, the LDS believe these are the same ordinances as of old.

So then what else would the "holy edifice" be? It wasn't a synagogue.

If you go to the article (again, I cannot provide a link yet unfortunately), it says this in full:

"In biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. The buildings thus used were not synagogues or any other ordinary places of worship. They were specially constructed for this particular purpose. While the people traveled in the wilderness, they used a portable tabernacle. This tabernacle is called “the temple of the Lord,” and it was there, for instance, that Samuel’s mother went to pray. (1 Sam. 1:9.) When they ceased their wanderings and obtained a stable government, they built a glorious temple in Jerusalem to take its place.
Following the pattern of biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites."


Further, he specifically states that "temple building and temple ordinances also were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith." Naturally, if temple ordinances were restored, or brought back, and if the Lord "again" is providing these ordinances, they were done before. So, I guess this bring us back to my OP, which is on the relationship between what was going on in the Jerusalem Temple, and what is done in LDS temples today, and whether this really is a restoration.

Patterned after refers to the design of the temples. Basically, this quote says that they were constructed/patterened after ancient temples. AND they are used for worhship, instruction, marriage, and baptisms for the dead.

So it's talking about the physical construction of LDS temples? That they are physically like the the ancient temple(s)? How so? Various Jerusalem Temple concepts and items simply are not found in LDS temples. There is no brazen sea for priestly ritual purification. No menorah. No incense altar. LDS temples also don't all have the same room structure. For example, in the Manhattan Temple, in the Endowment, you go through 3 rooms. When I attended a session at the San Diego Temple, you only go through 2 rooms. So what do you think they mean by "patterned after temples in ancient scripture"?

I have not claimed that baptism for the dead was performed in the temple. I have claimed that LDS believe that baptism for the dead was being practiced during Paul's time. I am uncertain where they were performed.

That's fine. The point is that proxy baptisms certainly were not performed in Solomon's Temple, nor Herod's Temple, nor the Tabernacle.

Revelation from the prophets.

Do you have any historical evidence/writings that support that?

I'm not certain what the Holy of Holies corresponds to in our current temples. My purpose for bringing it up is to point out that it existed in olden times and it had to have served some purpose. I suggest that ordinances were performed, but they were not discussed in the scriptures.

Ok. And what would be the relationship, if any, between supposed rituals performed in the Holy of Holies, and LDS temples?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I find it amusing that whenever someone asks the LDS to discuss a topic, all of the critics jump in with great enthusiasm.

I find it equally amusing that after all this time you still do not have the slightest evidence of any physical remains of anything resembling a Mormon temple prior to the construction of the Kirtland Temple, which itself does not resemble current Mormon Temple architecture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I guess you missed that I have already begun discussing the matter. Which, of course, invalidates your observation.


:o

And, you asked us where to begin and then proceeded to evade the obvious beginning point which I suggested.

 

[Ran77]

So then it is taught that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today were performed in temples anciently. Which is what I said from the beginning...

I think that you are missing the nuance of what I have presented. Your focus is on the temple. I have stated that temples existed of old. That the same ordinances existed of old. But I have not stated that the ordinances are always performed in the temple. That is what you are saying.

See below:

So then what else would the "holy edifice" be? It wasn't a synagogue.

If you go to the article (again, I cannot provide a link yet unfortunately), it says this in full:

I'm not sure what answer you are expecting. The article answers your question and it also deals with the point of misunderstanding above. Let's take a look:

"In biblical times sacred ordinances were administered in holy edifices for the spiritual salvation of ancient Israel. The buildings thus used were not synagogues or any other ordinary places of worship. They were specially constructed for this particular purpose. While the people traveled in the wilderness, they used a portable tabernacle. This tabernacle is called “the temple of the Lord,” and it was there, for instance, that Samuel’s mother went to pray. (1 Sam. 1:9.) When they ceased their wanderings and obtained a stable government, they built a glorious temple in Jerusalem to take its place.

Following the pattern of biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites."

Holy places were tabernacles and temples. I suspect that many baptisms were performed in neither of them, instead taking place at a nearby river. This is a technical point to be sure, but I want to be clear on the matter.

Further, he specifically states that "temple building and temple ordinances also were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith." Naturally, if temple ordinances were restored, or brought back, and if the Lord "again" is providing these ordinances, they were done before. So, I guess this bring us back to my OP, which is on the relationship between what was going on in the Jerusalem Temple, and what is done in LDS temples today, and whether this really is a restoration.

And I have already confirmed that we build temples and we perform ordinances. The practice of both being restored by Joseph Smith.

That being said, the work being done in LDS temples is a restoration of the work and ordinances that were performed previously.

So it's talking about the physical construction of LDS temples? That they are physically like the the ancient temple(s)? How so? Various Jerusalem Temple concepts and items simply are not found in LDS temples. There is no brazen sea for priestly ritual purification. No menorah. No incense altar. LDS temples also don't all have the same room structure. For example, in the Manhattan Temple, in the Endowment, you go through 3 rooms. When I attended a session at the San Diego Temple, you only go through 2 rooms. So what do you think they mean by "patterned after temples in ancient scripture"?

There is also no place for animal sacrifice. So even Biblically we see some changes taking place.

And I doubt that every temple that was built anciently had exactly the same room structure. And based on what has already been presented, it needn't be. The above quote already points out that they had tabernacles while traveling in the wilderness. Obviously, that is different from the permanent temples that were later built.

A pattern doesn't mean an exact duplicate. It means similar, following in a like manner. For the LDS there isn't a problem with building temples that look different from one another. They are buildings. While they are important as the House of God, what really matters are the ordinances performed inside.

That's fine. The point is that proxy baptisms certainly were not performed in Solomon's Temple, nor Herod's Temple, nor the Tabernacle.

I imagine they were performed in a nearby river.

Do you have any historical evidence/writings that support that?

On me? No. I would have to do some research. However, since you asked what LDS feel/believe on the matter I am not inclinded to spend the time to do so. I'm not interested in attempting to convince you of anything.

Ok. And what would be the relationship, if any, between supposed rituals performed in the Holy of Holies, and LDS temples?

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't spell out what ordinances were performed there. My reason for mentioning it is to present that something was being done and that leaves a reasonable possibility that it was the ordinances that are done in the temples today.

 

[Ran77]

And, you asked us where to begin and then proceeded to evade the obvious beginning point which I suggested.

I didn't ask you any such thing. I addressed a post to NYCGuy.

Unless you are both the same person. Are you? :o

 

[bbbbbbb]

I didn't ask you any such thing. I addressed a post to NYCGuy.

Unless you are both the same person. Are you? :o

Not at the moment as I am actually in another city.

 

[NYCGuy]

This will be my only post today since I have to go to work shortly (sadly the hospital doesn't close on Sundays ).

I think that you are missing the nuance of what I have presented. Your focus is on the temple. I have stated that temples existed of old. That the same ordinances existed of old. But I have not stated that the ordinances are always performed in the temple. That is what you are saying.

See below:

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I am stating a position that is similar to that given in "Why Mormons Build Temples", which states that the sacred ordinances administered anciently in the Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple have been provided once again by the Lord in our day. So, I'm interested in evidences that the ordinances administered anciently in those holy edifices are indeed the same ordinances performed in LDS temples today.

I'm not sure what answer you are expecting. The article answers your question and it also deals with the point of misunderstanding above. Let's take a look:

See above.

Holy places were tabernacles and temples. I suspect that many baptisms were performed in neither of them, instead taking place at a nearby river. This is a technical point to be sure, but I want to be clear on the matter.

Ok, so that is your speculation on the matter. The point is that neither baptisms for the living nor baptisms for the dead were performed in the temple, as they are today.

Interestingly, President Packer, in the video "Mormon Temples: A Conversation With a Church Leader", seems not to be clear on this point. When talking about baptism for the dead, he mentions how the baptismal font is on the back of twelve oxen. He then says that "this was just as was done in ancient Israel, as is detailed in 1 Kings chapter 7", which says that "it" stood on the backs of 12 oxen, and that "that's the same pattern that we have in our temple". Sadly, some may not realize that while structurally it certainly is the same, the brazen sea on the backs of twelve oxen in the Bible was not used for proxy baptisms as is done today, but was used for priestly purification prior to performing the rites. So, this is one more way in which LDS temples simply are not like the Jerusalem Temple.

And I have already confirmed that we build temples and we perform ordinances. The practice of both being restored by Joseph Smith.

That being said, the work being done in LDS temples is a restoration of the work and ordinances that were performed previously.

Right, and as I've said, I'm interested in how it is a restoration, a bringing back of something that was had before, and historical, objective evidences supporting that.

As an aside, Catholics understand our churches, cathedrals, basilicas, etc as continuing in the temple tradition (see Margaret Barker and her work for more on that). We believe, as Dr. Scott Hahn says on the back cover of the book "The Church: Unlocking the Secrets to the Places Catholics Call home", that "What the Temple was to the Israelites, our churches are for us Catholics. They are sanctuaries of God's presence-the meeting place of heaven and earth." The division of the church building parallels that of the Temple. There is water purification before one enters. Incense burns. There is a sacrificial priesthood offering sacrifice to God. Psalms are sung (the psalms are understood to be temple hymns). And of course the presence of God is believed to be there. While we don't claim to be a restoration or even an exact replica of the ancient temple in Jerusalem, it is clear that there are real similarities and continuity with the Temple tradition of old. I'm really not so sure with the LDS temples.

There is also no place for animal sacrifice. So even Biblically we see some changes taking place.

Right. However there were also unbloody sacrifices in the temple offered by the priests that ran it. The LDS temples do not have those either, or anything similar.

And I doubt that every temple that was built anciently had exactly the same room structure. And based on what has already been presented, it needn't be. The above quote already points out that they had tabernacles while traveling in the wilderness. Obviously, that is different from the permanent temples that were later built.

A pattern doesn't mean an exact duplicate. It means similar, following in a like manner. For the LDS there isn't a problem with building temples that look different from one another. They are buildings. While they are important as the House of God, what really matters are the ordinances performed inside.

Ok. How many temples do you believe were built? The Tabernacle and the Temple essentially had the same room structure, didn't they? They both had the outer courtyard, the holy place, and the most holy place.

I imagine they were performed in a nearby river.

See above.

On me? No. I would have to do some research. However, since you asked what LDS feel/believe on the matter I am not inclinded to spend the time to do so. I'm not interested in attempting to convince you of anything.

I also specifically asked for evidences. If I wasn't clear earlier, I meant historical, verifiable evidences for an actual restoration of what was done in the tabernacle and temple anciently. Since it seems that you haven't really done research on the matter, then perhaps another Latter-day Saint has. I'm not really interested in speculations and imagining, though I appreciate reading how you view the matter.

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't spell out what ordinances were performed there. My reason for mentioning it is to present that something was being done and that leaves a reasonable possibility that it was the ordinances that are done in the temples today.

But there is nothing pointing to that. Thank you.

 

[drstevej]

Did the Jerusalem Temple use borrowed Masonic Ritual?

Prominent leaders in Mormonism who were also Masons include:

Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism)
Joseph Smith, Sr. (Joseph Smith's father)
Hyrum Smith (Joseph Smith's brother)
Samuel Smith (Joseph's brother)
William Smith (Joseph's brother)
Brigham Young (Mormonism's second president)
John Taylor (Mormonism's third president)
Wilford Woodruff (Mormonism's fourth president)
Lorenzo Snow (Mormonism's fifth president)
Sidney Rigdon (Counselor to Joseph Smith)
John C. Bennett (Assistant president to the First Presidency)
Willard Richards (Second counselor to Brigham Young)
Newell K. Whitney (Presiding Bishop)
Heber C. Kimball (First counselor to Brigham Young)
Orson Pratt (Mormon apostle)
Parley P. Pratt (Mormon apostle)
Orson Hyde (Mormon apostle)
Orrin Porter Rockwell (Joseph Smith's bodyguard)
Lyman Johnson (Mormon apostle)
William Law (Second counselor to Joseph Smith)
William Marks (Nauvoo Stake president)
Erastus Snow (Mormon apostle)
William Clayton (Joseph Smith's secretary)

Masonic Influence in the Endowment Ceremony | Mormonism Research Ministry

 

[Simpleman25]

I'll add again that smith and others were never made masons.

It was yet another in a long line of untruths concerning him.

There was a long time in history when mormons were forbid to become masons.

 

[Albion]

Freemasonry hold a great reverence to Solomon. The Freemasonry ring is based upon Solomon's Seal ring.

There is no "freemasonry ring." Many Masons do wear a ring that indicates their membership, however. There are hundreds of different designs, but almost always, their rings will sport the Masonic square and compass.

It's difficult to tell that Freemasonry is an entirely different entity from Judaism or Zionism.

Actually, it's quite easy. Masonry is not a religion, so that distinguishes it from Judaism right there. And it has no particular position concerning the State of Israel, so that rules out being any kind of Zionist.

Many rituals, symbols, etc are the same.

Square, compass, clasped hands, eye, stairway, beehive, globe, checkerboard flooring...? If Judaism is associated with any of those, please let me know.

Even the Freemasonry symbol is a hexagram without the horizontal lines.

The "Freemasonry symbol" is a compass placed under a carpenter's square or ruler.

 

[Albion]

Did the Jerusalem Temple use borrowed Masonic Ritual?



Masonic Influence in the Endowment Ceremony

In case there's any misunderstanding, Mormonism has borrowed many symbols and rituals from Freemasonry, but that's not because Freemasonry has had any particular interest in Mormonism.

Because of the prominence of Freemasonry in American history, it's been the case that all manner of organizations, from churches to rival fraternities, have taken Masonic symbols for their own use.

 

[drstevej]

^^ agreed

 

[Ran77]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I am stating a position that is similar to that given in "Why Mormons Build Temples", which states that the sacred ordinances administered anciently in the Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple have been provided once again by the Lord in our day. So, I'm interested in evidences that the ordinances administered anciently in those holy edifices are indeed the same ordinances performed in LDS temples today.

LDS build temples in order to allow people to make covenants with God. Both now and for those who never had the opportunity. In the Old Testament, not all ordinances were performed in temples. However, current revelation tells us that today they will be.

As far as evidence goes, I have already given one for baptism for the dead. Beyond that, the temple ordinances are sacred and I suspect that there will be little evidence that points directly to them.

Ok, so that is your speculation on the matter. The point is that neither baptisms for the living nor baptisms for the dead were performed in the temple, as they are today.

That is my speculation, yes.

Interestingly, President Packer, in the video "Mormon Temples: A Conversation With a Church Leader", seems not to be clear on this point. When talking about baptism for the dead, he mentions how the baptismal font is on the back of twelve oxen. He then says that "this was just as was done in ancient Israel, as is detailed in 1 Kings chapter 7", which says that "it" stood on the backs of 12 oxen, and that "that's the same pattern that we have in our temple". Sadly, some may not realize that while structurally it certainly is the same, the brazen sea on the backs of twelve oxen in the Bible was not used for proxy baptisms as is done today, but was used for priestly purification prior to performing the rites. So, this is one more way in which LDS temples simply are not like the Jerusalem Temple.

Where is your evidence that it was not used for baptisms?

Right, and as I've said, I'm interested in how it is a restoration, a bringing back of something that was had before, and historical, objective evidences supporting that.

I'm pretty sure I have explained how it is a restoration.

If you are wanting to argue about the evidence associated with it, I'm not interested. Maybe you can get one of the other LDS to argue with you.

Right. However there were also unbloody sacrifices in the temple offered by the priests that ran it. The LDS temples do not have those either, or anything similar.

Yep. There is a reason why. The ordinances of sacrifice were stopped after the sacrifice of the Savior. There was no longer a need to represent the sacrifice that would save the people because it had already happened.

Perhaps you can point out to me where the activities in the temple are outlined in the New Testament. That would give us a good spot from which to continue this discussion.

Ok. How many temples do you believe were built? The Tabernacle and the Temple essentially had the same room structure, didn't they? They both had the outer courtyard, the holy place, and the most holy place.

I don't know how many temples were built.

I'm willing to work with essentially. Do you think that LDS temples of today do not essentially have an outer courtyard, a holy place, and a most holy place. If that is all it takes - to be essentially the same - then it doesn't seem as there is a problem with LDS temples have some differences in design.

I also specifically asked for evidences. If I wasn't clear earlier, I meant historical, verifiable evidences for an actual restoration of what was done in the tabernacle and temple anciently. Since it seems that you haven't really done research on the matter, then perhaps another Latter-day Saint has. I'm not really interested in speculations and imagining, though I appreciate reading how you view the matter.

You were clear. I responded to your request for what LDS feel/believe on the matter, but I'm not interested in arguing about evidence. That's not what I do here.

But there is nothing pointing to that. Thank you.

You are welcome.

 

[timewerx]

There is no "freemasonry ring." Many Masons do wear a ring that indicates their membership, however. There are hundreds of different designs, but almost always, their rings will sport the Masonic square and compass.

I think we all know that already.

I'll assume that you think that the compass and square does not look similar even remotely to the hexagram that it warrants no further discussion.

Moving along...

Actually, it's quite easy. Masonry is not a religion, so that distinguishes it from Judaism right there. And it has no particular position concerning the State of Israel, so that rules out being any kind of Zionist.

In my personal opinion, Freemasonry is a religion, why the many beliefs from the Bible? Why the requirement to believe in any god?

Similarity of Masonry to Judaism and Christianity (Old Testament):

FREEMASON SYMBOLS - The Meanings of Freemasonry's Masonic Symbols.

 

[NYCGuy]

LDS build temples in order to allow people to make covenants with God. Both now and for those who never had the opportunity. In the Old Testament, not all ordinances were performed in temples. However, current revelation tells us that today they will be.

As far as evidence goes, I have already given one for baptism for the dead. Beyond that, the temple ordinances are sacred and I suspect that there will be little evidence that points directly to them.

Ok. Yes, evidences for baptism for the dead, not performed in the temple.

That is my speculation, yes.

Ok. Speculation, no historical evidence.

Where is your evidence that it was not used for baptisms?

Actually, logically it is up to you to provide evidence that the brazen sea was used for baptisms for the living or for the dead (otherwise that would be like asking "what is your evidence that the temple was not used for human sacrifice?) . What we do know is that it was used for priestly purification rites prior to temple service. This is well established. Please provide evidence, unless you're merely making an argument from silence.

I'm pretty sure I have explained how it is a restoration.

If you are wanting to argue about the evidence associated with it, I'm not interested. Maybe you can get one of the other LDS to argue with you.

I am merely asking for evidences to support your speculations and opinions. If you aren't interested in providing such things, don't have them, etc, them thanks for your time.

Yep. There is a reason why. The ordinances of sacrifice were stopped after the sacrifice of the Savior. There was no longer a need to represent the sacrifice that would save the people because it had already happened.

Perhaps you can point out to me where the activities in the temple are outlined in the New Testament. That would give us a good spot from which to continue this discussion.

Why are you limiting it to the New Testament? The Old Testament provides more details on temple and tabernacle activities than the NT, more than enough to see whether the LDS temples are a restoration of activities that went on there. We have yet to see evidences of proxy or living baptisms being performed in the temple, nor evidences that eternal marriages were done there.

I don't know how many temples were built.

I'm willing to work with essentially. Do you think that LDS temples of today do not essentially have an outer courtyard, a holy place, and a most holy place. If that is all it takes - to be essentially the same - then it doesn't seem as there is a problem with LDS temples have some differences in design.

There is no corresponding universal structure of LDS temples vs the Jerusalem temple. As mentioned, LDS temples are not all of the same design, with some having more or less Endowment rooms than others. What do you believe are the outer courtyard, holy place, and most holy place in modern LDS temples, if it wouldn't be related to the Endowment rooms? How do they relate to those found in the Jerusalem Temple that leads one to believe that they "essentially" have those things?

You were clear. I responded to your request for what LDS feel/believe on the matter, but I'm not interested in arguing about evidence. That's not what I do here.






You are welcome.

But didn't you ask me for evidences above?

 

[Ran77]

Actually, logically it is up to you to provide evidence that the brazen sea was used for baptisms for the living or for the dead (otherwise that would be like asking "what is your evidence that the temple was not used for human sacrifice?) . What we do know is that it was used for priestly purification rites prior to temple service. This is well established. Please provide evidence, unless you're merely making an argument from silence.

Can I see the well established evidence of the purification rites? Could you please direct me to the verses that describe this?

If you aren't interested in providing such things, don't have them, etc, them thanks for your time.

Okay.

But didn't you ask me for evidences above?

I was curious to see what evidence you had on the topic. I had no plan to argue about it. I don't find that funny. But if you don't want to provide it, that's okay with me.

Toodles.